Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Is designed to scare people. Even though it's BS. Most of those cameras are firstly in massive cities.

Well, lots of people live in those massive cities...and by cities, I mean anywhere with a population of >100k or so. It's easy to be blase about it from a viewer's perspective. I lived in London from 88-96 and was surprised to see how much surveillance increased during that time. On the rare occasions when I go back I find it quite unpleasant and intrusive to see so many cameras.

Certainly one can argue the old 'if you're not doing anything wrong...' position. But what's 'wrong' is not guaranteed to be fair or consistent, but can change quite quickly if the political climate shifts - and it's comforting but mistaken to assume all our mistakes are behind us and things can only improve. Sometimes they decline, and under those circumstances ubiquitous surveillance paired with ample state funding for technological improvements presents a serious danger. Consider that by the time the Berlin wall fell, the East German secret police operated a network of informers estimated to comprise ~2% of the whole population - some claim it was much higher. that's not a healthy use of resources or authority.

Didn't downvote you BTW - I disagree but I don't consider a variance in opinion justifies all the negatives.



My main issue though is that articles hand wave about these cameras, implying that they are a state owned program of surveillance. They're not.

Companies, shops, town councils, decide independently to install cameras.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: